????任何人只要在Twitter、商務(wù)社交網(wǎng)站LinkedIn或 Facebook關(guān)注我，就會(huì)多少對(duì)我的閱讀習(xí)慣有所了解。盡管我自認(rèn)為在同齡人中對(duì)社交媒體還是比較了解和熟識(shí)的——可以看杰西漢佩爾和我就手機(jī)軟件Snapchat撰寫(xiě)的專(zhuān)稿——我的新聞消費(fèi)觀比較老套。我訂了三份報(bào)紙，以及幾本雜志。

????下面，我想對(duì)這幾家“老牌媒體”出版物以及我的閱讀習(xí)慣說(shuō)上兩句。

????首先，我是付費(fèi)訂閱的。第二，我經(jīng)常使用這些媒體的網(wǎng)絡(luò)、手機(jī)和平板版式內(nèi)容，一天內(nèi)在不同的媒體形式間來(lái)回切換，根據(jù)不同的因素和需要來(lái)定，例如身處何方（在家、在辦公室或在出租車(chē)上）以及當(dāng)時(shí)所做的事情（餐桌前、躺在被窩里、或開(kāi)會(huì)時(shí)打發(fā)時(shí)間）。

????我閱讀各類(lèi)內(nèi)容，包括電郵簡(jiǎn)報(bào)、博客、以及其他社交媒體上的內(nèi)容（主要是Twitter、LinkedIn和Facebook）但是，絕大多數(shù)真正有實(shí)際價(jià)值的文章還是來(lái)自我付費(fèi)訂閱的老牌媒體。我在社交媒體上有一定的知名度，我也經(jīng)常與關(guān)注好友分享所讀到的內(nèi)容。最近在個(gè)人空間中貼出來(lái)的東西正好說(shuō)明了上述情況。一個(gè)周末，我轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)了《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》（ the New York Times）上有關(guān)紐約流浪女孩的悲慘遭遇，《華爾街時(shí)報(bào)》（the Wall Street Journal）上有關(guān)美國(guó)二戰(zhàn)老兵曾經(jīng)接受的前腦葉白質(zhì)切除術(shù)的恐怖報(bào)道，以及我在《財(cái)富》（Fortune）的同事彼得?艾爾金德有關(guān)離職紐約市長(zhǎng)布隆伯格將重返其一手創(chuàng)辦的彭博社（Bloomberg LP）的全面深度報(bào)道。

????意料之中的是，上述這些能得新聞大獎(jiǎng)的報(bào)道也都出現(xiàn)在了相關(guān)的付費(fèi)出版物上。這些報(bào)道耗費(fèi)了新聞機(jī)構(gòu)數(shù)目不小的經(jīng)費(fèi)。每一份報(bào)道都凝結(jié)著記者多年的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和新聞機(jī)構(gòu)的可信度。

????現(xiàn)在，對(duì)內(nèi)容的收費(fèi)方法各不相同。《時(shí)代》周刊（Times）采用的是計(jì)時(shí)器方法，非付費(fèi)用戶可以免費(fèi)閱讀所有熱門(mén)的系列內(nèi)容。《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》有一套自己的想法，特立獨(dú)行地將部分新聞報(bào)道貼在網(wǎng)上，供免費(fèi)閱讀。《財(cái)富》雜志則將紙質(zhì)雜志上的所有內(nèi)容設(shè)為付費(fèi)內(nèi)容，但網(wǎng)站上的文稿，包括這篇文章，都是免費(fèi)的。傳統(tǒng)媒體在內(nèi)容收費(fèi)問(wèn)題上的做法各不相同。《名利場(chǎng)》雜志（Vanity Fair）將貝薩尼?邁克林有關(guān)瑪麗莎?梅耶爾的報(bào)道免費(fèi)放在網(wǎng)站上。我猜想《名利場(chǎng)》一定借此賺取足夠的網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告效應(yīng)，以便能帶來(lái)更多的訂閱。這就是出版業(yè)的特性。

????Anyone who follows me on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook knows a little something about my reading habits. Although I like to think I'm as proficient at and knowledgeable about social media as anyone my age -- see the feature Jessi Hempel and I recently wrote about the buzzy mobile application Snapchat -- my journalism consumption is fairly old school. I get three newspapers delivered to my doorstep, and I also subscribe to numerous magazines.

????A few comments on these "old-media" publications and how I use them.

????First, I pay for them. Second, I avidly use their web, phone, and tablet versions too, switching back and forth among media over the course of the day, depending on a wide variety of factors, including where I am (at home, in the office, in a taxi) and what I'm doing (sitting at the kitchen table, lying in bed, battling boredom at a meeting).

????I read all sorts of things, including e-mail newsletters, blogs, and other things I find on social media -- primarily Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook -- but the overwhelming majority of the articles from which I get true value are the old-media publications for which I pay. As a journalist with a public profile and a social media presence of my own, I also share what I read with people who follow me. A recent spate of items I shared perfectly illustrates my point. Over the course of one weekend I shared the outstanding series the New York Times wrote about the plight of a homeless girl in New York, the shocking reporting by the Wall Street Journal about lobotomies performed on World War II veterans in the U.S., and my own colleague Peter Elkind's exhaustive and penetrating examination in Fortune of Bloomberg LP at the precise moment its founder, departing New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, is about to return to his company.

????It's no coincidence that each of these likely prize-winning reports appeared in publications that require readers to pay. Each cost the organizations involved serious money to produce. Each built on the experience of the journalists involved and the credibility of institutions that backed them.

????Now, there is no one right way to charge for content. The Times uses a metering method, meaning that a casual, non-paying reader could view all of the Dasani series without paying. The Journal arbitrarily makes some of its journalism available for free, according to its own mysterious methodology. Fortune puts nearly all of the journalism that appears in the printed magazine behind a paywall, while it makes all its web-specific articles, including this essay, available for free. (Go figure.) Nor is there unanimity among traditional media regarding charging at all. The magazine Vanity Fair made Bethany McLean's outstanding profile of Marissa Mayer available online for free. I assume that Vanity Fair believes it can generate enough digital advertising and, more importantly, drive subscriptions to its magazine that way. It is the publication's prerogative.